Pz-VIe Turret

Charles22 · Post by **Charles22** » Wed Jul 12, 2000 4:50 am

While some have advocated the idea of helping other tanks with mantlets, I would suggest that if what we see there is really something of a hole (by that I mean something extraordinarily peculiar to large caliber tanks, or indeed any tanks), that we don't get all fired off sure that the other tanks don't have them, before we go adding armor to them, or subtracting from the Tiger.

The Tiger's hull armor was nothing spectacular, so clearly, common sense would show you that the Tiger's legend of being relatively invincible was built off the turret, for more than a few Western Allied guns could penetrate 100mm.

Jon Grasham · Post by **Jon Grasham** » Wed Jul 12, 2000 6:27 am

Just a recomendation: For those who find the armor value offensive, disgusting, wrong, or otherwise in need of change, here is a simple solution.

1. Open up the SPWAW OOB editor, click on File, and edit OOB, then selecting OOB 70: Germany. Next, scroll down to unit 37, and click on it. Then, in the 4th space in the second to bottom column, enter in your new armor thicknes, in milimeters, which you feel is "right" (is there EVER gonna be one?

BTW, by giving detailed instructions, im not trying to be a wise a**, just there for anyone who may not be familiar with the editor.

Of course I realize in PBEM it may be an issue with changing unit stats, but you could simply agree to use a certain value, or make a backup OOB file for such instances.

[This message has been edited by Jon Grasham (edited 07-11-2000).]

teut_onic · Post by **teut_onic** » Wed Jul 12, 2000 8:00 am

Originally posted by Paul Vebber:

Phew, so much on the Tiger no one noticed we hadn't talked about the Panther yet

well, why stop there and not the pzkw III series where the mantlet was over the entire front of the turret, unless i am looking at these pictures wrong. So that would mean that the panther and pzkw III should be 200mm and 60-100 mm depending on model.

Teutonic

Ps. I like the Idea there of changing it in the OOB editor.

Paul Vebber · Post by **Paul Vebber** » Wed Jul 12, 2000 4:44 pm

Actually I did upgrade the Panther, and many other things as well in version 2. May not be enough:-) The shades of grey here are many

Charles22 · Post by **Charles22** » Wed Jul 12, 2000 5:10 pm

Upgrade all Gerry front turret armor to 200mm? How absurd! I may be no expert, but me thinks there is such a thing as more variety regarding gun mantlet thickness, and if there were not, there would be legendary tales about the mighty PZIII series armor, of which there are none.

[This message has been edited by Charles22 (edited 07-12-2000).]

Nikademus · Post by **Nikademus** » Wed Jul 12, 2000 5:55 pm

Traditionally the Pz-III series has appeared to have been given a 'mantlet + front turret' bonus throughout the history of the SP series. Most sources credit the front turret as around 50-57mm of armor with the Mantlet being an additional 20-30mm.

If memory serves, SP-I gave late series Pz-III tanks a 'front turret' rating of 7 or 8 (Old SP armor factors seemed to corespond "roughly" in ten milimeter increments i.e. a factor of '8' represented 80mm of armor)

in comparison the Pz-IV was given a rating '5' (50mm) even though from a 'stat' point of view the same situation existed wheras the frontal turret had an armor listing and so did the mantlet. No "official" explanation was ever given for this but in studying photos i concluded to myself that this incongruity between the two marks of German tanks was due to Mantlet size as mentioned by others. The Pz-III mantlet covered the whole turret whereas teh Pz-IV mantlet covered only a very small space around the gun barrel leaving a large surface area of front turret exposed.

SP:WAW changed this a bit....average 'Front Turret' rating has been increased from 50 to around 70-75mm. Not sure if this is accurate, guess it again comes down to personal preference as it 'is' possible for Mantlet hits as well as turret hits. I try to go for 'better than average prob' so given the small size of the mantlet of the Pz-IV would probably rather see it not added to the front turret. Pz-III though would seem a legitimate issue for Mantlet + turret.

Reason i 'dont' agree in the case of the Tiger is because the gun mechanism is so much larger than in the case of the Pz-III. Its large enough to probably stop the shell, but again any shell with sufficient velocity to crack through the mantlet is gonna at least 7 out of 10 times disable/damage the gun and/or turret crew members.

another reason is that if this particular Turret/Mantlet configuration was so effective (200mm equivilent) than why did not the Germans retain the feature for the Tiger II? Given the massive upgrade that that tank represented it just does'nt seem to make sense to have the two tanks have near equivilent front turret ratings to be a mere 15mm apart.

Not trying to be anal about it. Obviously the easiest solution is to simply edit in the OOB but the only problem with that is for email/TCP games one must have unmodified OOB's for compatibility issues (i already have two sets of OOBs, one for personal, one for TCP/email)

Charles22 · Post by **Charles22** » Wed Jul 12, 2000 7:23 pm

I believe the King Tiger had quite a bit more innovation applied to other areas. See the design. There's more slope and crucially, the hull and top armors have been upgraded. People complain about the King Tiger unreliability with the weight it had to pull, so why add that terribly much to a front mantlet which had already proven reliable? You will note that even the entire turret was redesigned. It's more oval than the Tiger. I'm not sure whether the front turret/mantlet is more sloped, but if that is so, then that would be another reason, other than the aforementioned reliability found in the old design, for not putting that terribly much more weight on the turret. Perhaps this was done also with the view of not slowing the traverse any more than it had been already. If we look at the Jagdtiger and such, we might have more to support this view, as the heavy tank destroyer design had very little traverse problem to worry about, so that this still later design could heap more armor on it.

Nikademus · Post by **Nikademus** » Wed Jul 12, 2000 7:36 pm

I'm betting that the round manlet of the King Tiger vs the flat unsloped mantlet of the Tiger ties in with my issue on penetration of said Mantlet!

For example, an 85mm round that smashes through the mantlet will probably be stoped by the gun breech/mechansim but once more time....what condition will the gun be at that point?!

I'd say at the very least you will have a Tiger with it's teeth pulled! Hence my main objection to a 200mm rating for the turret.

With the rounded mantlet first off there is a far smaller area to target and even if successful your chance of glance off is greatly increased.

SP:WAW has made a great leap in being able to simulate AoI and the relationship to ricoshays however game engine limitations make simulating 'round' shapes like the latewar Panther, T-34 and Konigstiger mantlets a challege.

no question the round mantlet was more effective. by that definition alone there should be a greater degree of 'difference' between the FT ratings of the Tiger I and II!

Charles22 · Post by **Charles22** » Wed Jul 12, 2000 7:50 pm

Nikademus: It seems as though you think that the mantlet is the circular part screwed onto the frame, whereas the mantlet is much larger. The bolting you refer to, is what I would refer to as part of the gun itself, though I guess that might be called part of the mantlet. I suppose the bolting is done to the mantlet and the mantlet is bolted to the turret (which does have a frontal slab, however large/small it may appear). The mantlet isn't circular, it's rectangular.

[This message has been edited by Charles22 (edited 07-12-2000).]

JJU57 · Post by **JJU57** » Wed Jul 12, 2000 7:56 pm

It seems the real reason behind this discussion is the difficulty in killing the Tiger. Well, get flank shots! Going toe to toe against the front armor is suicide.

Manuver for flank shots where the armor is much easier to penetrate.

Nikademus · Post by **Nikademus** » Wed Jul 12, 2000 8:19 pm

Charles;

was reffering to the mantlets on the Konigstiger which is round, compared to the large rectangular mantlet on the Tiger I

Charles22 · Post by **Charles22** » Wed Jul 12, 2000 9:19 pm

Yeah, I thought I might had got that confused. Just for curiousity's sake, achtungpanzer.com has these stats. for soem of the PZIII series:

Specifications
Model: Ausf H Ausf L/M
Weight: 21800kg 22700kg
Crew: 5 men 5 men
Engine: Maybach HL 120 TRM / 12-cylinder / 265hp Maybach HL 120 TRM / 12-cylinder / 265hp
Speed: Road: 40km/h
Cross-Country: 20km/h Road: 40km/h
Cross-Country: 20km/h
Range: Road: 165km
Cross-Country: 105km Road: 155km
Cross-Country: 95km
Fuel Capacity: 320 litres 320 litres
Lenght: 5.52m (with the gun) 6.41m (with the gun)
5.56m (w/o the gun)
Width: 2.95m 2.95m
Height: 2.50m 2.50m
Armament: 50mm KwK 38 L/42
2 x 7.92mm MG34
(1 x MG - hull)
(1 x MG - coax) 50mm KwK 39 L/60
2 x 7.92mm MG34
(1 x MG - hull)
(1 x MG - coax)
Ammo: 50mm - 99 rounds
7.92mm - 2700 rounds 50mm - 92 rounds
7.92mm - 3750 rounds
Armor (mm/angle): Front Turret: 30/13
Front Upper Hull: 30+30/90
Front Lower Hull: 30+30/23
Side Turret: 30/25
Side Upper Hull: 30/0
Side Lower Hull: 30/0
Rear Turret: 30/13
Rear Upper Hull: 30/30
Rear Lower Hull: 30+30/8
Turret Top / Bottom: 10/89
Upper Hull Top / Bottom: 17/77
Lower Hull Top / Bottom: 16/90
Gun Mantlet: 37/0 Front Turret: 57/15
Front Upper Hull: 50+20/9
Front Lower Hull: 50/21
Side Turret: 30/25
Side Upper Hull: 30/0
Side Lower Hull: 30/0
Rear Turret: 30/12
Rear Upper Hull: 50/17
Rear Lower Hull: 50/9
Turret Top / Bottom: 10/83
Upper Hull Top / Bottom: 18/79
Lower Hull Top / Bottom: 16/90
Gun Mantlet: 50+20/0

(me again) Notice the latter models, if you add up the front armor and mantlet both. Perhaps shooting the Tiger is revealing a bit more than some of us might be comfortable with (In one case, that would be 57mm turret added to sometimes 50mm mantlet, and at other times to a 70mm mantlet.

Larry Holt · Post by **Larry Holt** » Wed Jul 12, 2000 9:21 pm

Originally posted by Charles22:
...The Tiger's hull armor was nothing spectacular, so clearly, common sense would show you that the Tiger's legend of being relatively invincible was built off the turret, for more than a few Western Allied guns could penetrate 100mm.

I've read that the Tiger had the best quality armor in the world. The Germans had very strict quality control for it that was not applied to others like the panther. I'm not sure if this higher quality control was applied to the King Tiger or not.

Based on this, it seems to me that some thickness of Tiger armor should be more resistant than an equal thickness of other tanks and perhaps the Tiger deserves a "bonus" thickness above what it physically had to model its superior quality.

Similarly the early model Grants with bolted armor were weaker than an equal thickness of welded armor due to the bolts tendency to break off and fly around the inside when hit.

------------------
An old soldier but not yet a faded one.
OK, maybe just a bit faded.

Charles22 · Post by **Charles22** » Wed Jul 12, 2000 10:45 pm

Though the Tiger's frontal armor was somewhat legendary, I know the King Tiger was equally or more so (legendary that is), though the attention to quality may not had been there.

Fabio Prado · Post by **Fabio Prado** » Wed Jul 12, 2000 10:50 pm

Paul, I have the book.It's "Germany's TIGER Tanks - Tiger I & II: Combat Tactics" by Thomas L Jentz.

On page 18, you'll find:
" 4. Turret Mantle at 30 degrees Compound Angle - 6 pounder APDS

Three rounds. Numbers 27, 28, and 29, resulted in the nose lodging for one round and two non-defeats at striking velocities of 3357, 3351, and 3551 ft/sec, respectively. From rounds 27 and 28 an estimated limit was obtained at 3354 ft/s, representing a range of approximately 1200 yards. Round 27, striking in the area of the turret telescope, sheared two bracket-holding bolts but otherwise appeared to do little damage."

"5. Turret Mantle at Normal - 6 pounder APCBC

Round 73, striking at 2398 ft/s, 1.5 inches above the lower edge of the mantlet, scooped down through the roof, holing same 7.5 x 4 inches. Considerable damage was caused to the rear end of the transmission. Fragments of roof plate were found on the driver's seat.The driver would have beenkilled and other members of the crew may have been casualties."

On page 13, however, in Table 7.3.3; Jentz states:

Range in meters at which the Tiger I could be Penetrated at a side angle of 30 degrees:
FRONT 57mm 6 pounder APCBC

Gun Mantlet 0
Turret 0
Superstructure 0
Hull 0

Penetration ability of the 6 pounder:

Meters APCBC APCR
457 81mm 131mm
914 74mm 117mm
1371 63mm -
1828 56mm 90mm

Source: Guns vs. Armor Website, Copyright 1999 David Michael Honner.
http://www.wargamer.org/GvA/weapons/british_guns4.html

FAP

Originally posted by Paul Vebber:
This boils down to being something of a "glass half empty/glass half full" sort of thing.

The pictures show clearly that there are places where the armor is thicker than "front" or teh "mantle" and others where the mantle is teh nly protection. The problem comes in deciding which value to use if you have to pick one. Some think the lessor, some the higher.

Jentz has a good record of shots at different locals by different weapons and summarizes by indicating that the "mantle" how ever he defined it, was significantly harder to penetrate than the "front".

If someone has that book, what was teh penetration of the 6 lber APDS? I think it was largely ineffective but managed one penetration? THis would argue for something like 180 as a compromise value giving the 6 lber APDS some chance?

Looking at this from an effectiveness standpoint I think is the only way to get a good compromise rather than simply picking numbers out of the air, or making it an "either/or"

------------------
Fabio Prado fprado@fprado.com
Webmaster - The ARMOR Site!

Nikademus · Post by **Nikademus** » Wed Jul 12, 2000 11:11 pm

with those figures for the 6pounder, a FT rating of 200mm would make it totally impervious to the weapon

Paul Vebber · Post by **Paul Vebber** » Wed Jul 12, 2000 11:34 pm

Thanks Fabio! The 130 APDS penetration at 30 degrees and 500 yards, agrees favorably with the 170-ish value in the game.

I guess I mistook the deflected APCBC shot, been a while since I read that book.

Is there a range for 6# APDS or 17lber or other shell that gives the estimated range for penetration?

AT least we know that at 1200 yards the thing is fairly proof against 6# APDS

Charles22 · Post by **Charles22** » Wed Jul 12, 2000 11:58 pm

Nikademus: On the other hand the report states a range of zero couldn't penetrate it (with a 6pdr. that is).

Also, look at this page from the same website, notice the Tiger and King Tiger front turret and mantlet ratings: http://www.wargamer.org/GvA/weapons/german_turret8.html

Look at the PZVIB, it could "possibly", in combination, be as thick as 310mm (though it was pot cast, whatever that means)!!!

[This message has been edited by Charles22 (edited 07-12-2000).]

Nikademus · Post by **Nikademus** » Thu Jul 13, 2000 12:02 am

Charles;

but at an angle of 30 degrees.

even at 120mm thickness, an AoI of 30 degrees would be difficult for most Allied weapons to penetrate. That would even give a Russian 85mm a tough time.

I'd could see the Tiger I mantlet/Turret rating being parred down to around 145-150. Even if there's still some controversy, that would still make the Tiger the tough opponent we all know it to be. It just would'nt be invincible from that quarter anymore

Charles22 · Post by **Charles22** » Thu Jul 13, 2000 12:21 am

As I've seen before, there are those who want to water down history, and there are those who do not. A Tiger without history to it, whatever that may be, IS NOT a Tiger, but a figment on what people think is "fair". I'm not interested in buttering down units, but rather in dealing with them. I wholly intend on dealing with them when fighting as the Soviets. I have my ways.... (diabolical laughter at this point)

In playing as the Soviets, I've seen a Finnish sniper slay a KVI on it's side armor (the sniper only has a rifle)!!! Soviets have a lovely little cheap unit called partisans (recon no less) which costs like 5 points for six men (now that's a deal!), which have a rifle and some grenade or something. I will find my ways, I will find my ways.....(even more diabolical laughter)